Senior Obama Official cites Marx in defense of “class warfare”

[nehalem256]

Republicans talking about "class warfare" is like some kind of Orwellian Newspeak.

How the hell can they do this with a straight face after 30 years of Reaganomics?

Reaganomics never led to millions of people literally starving to death... marxism did.

 

[PingviN]

The bigger question is is he wrong? We can jump straight to Marx said it so it must be wrong (adjacent to the "Nazis believed in gravity so I can fly!" line of reasoning), however, what he said is really not that controversial. His overall point was two things, first, that workers have different interests than their employers. It is in the workers' interests to be paid more, it is in the employer's interests to pay their workers less. It is in the workers' interest to work fewer hours for the same pay, it is in the employer's to work more for the same pay. It is in the workers' interests to be given more paid vacation time, it is in the employer's interests to give less vacation time. It is in the workers' interests to pay a smaller share of the tax burden, it is in the employer's interest to pay a smaller share of the tax burden relative to workers. Class warfare, dramatic a term as it is, is merely the acknowledgement that the two groups in the labor dynamic have some mutually exclusive interests and so there must be give and take between them.

His second point, which your thread has demonstrated nicely by the way, thanks for that, is that even mentioning this dynamic instantly starts the faux outrage machine and degenerates the conversation into nonsense and partisan bickering over what should be a noncontroversial point.

Can we admit the interests of workers are not always the same as those of their employers? Can you point to anything in his article which is actually wrong? In all honestly, for all the hubbub I was hoping for a more interesting and controversial article.

Good post. One of few.

 

[actuarial]

Reaganomics never led to millions of people literally starving to death... marxism did.

Class warfare has occurred far more times in history than just the rise of communism and Reagonomics.

 

[PokerGuy]

Does anyone actually find it surprising that obummer administration members support Marxist beliefs and support class warfare? I don't see why this would be surprising, there's nothing from the past 4 years that suggests anything else. The only surprising thing is that Rick decided to publicly state his support for class warfare. Others support class warfare but are more careful about saying it outright.

 

[Jhhnn]

The bigger question is is he wrong? We can jump straight to Marx said it so it must be wrong (adjacent to the "Nazis believed in gravity so I can fly!" line of reasoning), however, what he said is really not that controversial. His overall point was two things, first, that workers have different interests than their employers. It is in the workers' interests to be paid more, it is in the employer's interests to pay their workers less. It is in the workers' interest to work fewer hours for the same pay, it is in the employer's to work more for the same pay. It is in the workers' interests to be given more paid vacation time, it is in the employer's interests to give less vacation time. It is in the workers' interests to pay a smaller share of the tax burden, it is in the employer's interest to pay a smaller share of the tax burden relative to workers. Class warfare, dramatic a term as it is, is merely the acknowledgement that the two groups in the labor dynamic have some mutually exclusive interests and so there must be give and take between them.

His second point, which your thread has demonstrated nicely by the way, thanks for that, is that even mentioning this dynamic instantly starts the faux outrage machine and degenerates the conversation into nonsense and partisan bickering over what should be a noncontroversial point.

Can we admit the interests of workers are not always the same as those of their employers? Can you point to anything in his article which is actually wrong? In all honestly, for all the hubbub I was hoping for a more interesting and controversial article.

Thank you.

The usual ravers likely didn't even read the linked piece, and if they did, they failed to comprehend it. It's just that the "Obama is a Marxist!" bandwagon rolled by, so they jumped on, started tooting their horn. The OP likely received the link in a chain email as a member of an online community of like minded ravers.

Yeh- slow outrage day.

 

[Brainonska511]

For all those raving about Marx, did you know Adam Smith, the god of capitalism, pointed out how the interests of labor, capital, and rent holders (land owners) all tended to differ and that it would be necessary to strike a balance. He also pointed out how the many of the interests of capital (for example (but not limited to): low-wages through collusion of capital/union busting....) tended to go against the general interests of society. He was apparently a Marxist before his time!

 

[sandorski]

Marx said: "2+2=4"

What say you OP?

 

[Atreus21]

Interesting where this is going.

It's gone from: There's a problem with quoting Karl Marx because of his legacy with respect to the horrors of communism

to

There's no problem quoting Karl Marx since he believed in gravity and 2+2=4.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting where this is going.

It's gone from: There's a problem with quoting Karl Marx because of his legacy with respect to the horrors of communism

to

There's no problem quoting Karl Marx since he believed in gravity and 2+2=4.

There should never be a problem in principle with quoting Karl Marx, ever. This should be obvious to everyone. There may be specific ideas of Marx's that people find objectionable, but he was one of the most enormously important political and economic theorists in all of human history. He produced numerous economic and political insights that people of all ideological persuasions readily accept today. (his contributions to the value of labor are hugely influential) Are we supposed to pretend that doesn't exist because he said other things you don't like?

 

[yllus]

He isn't "citing" Marx in defense of anything. He's discussing the topic of class warfare, in which not mentioning Marx would be the equivalent of ignoring the elephant in the room. He uses a quote from Marx to lead up to this, his main point:

The central point is that there is no way that this question of the working day or any number of other social questions, though posed as rights by the groups in conflict, can be resolved without being reformulated in terms of class struggle or class warfare.

Unlike civil rights – the rights which our society regards as inalienable – it is difficult to do much more than simply take sides when it comes to economic rights, because what we call economic rights are really nothing more than the bargaining in an exchange between those providing labor and those providing capital, those creating jobs and those taking the jobs, or whatever. There is class warfare because the social and economic pie has to be split, and there is no objective way to do so.

The point being that the involvement of "class warfare" in economics goes back a very long way. That's it - he continues to discuss that point without bringing up Marx again.

Is it safe to assume that those of you criticizing him did not actually read the blog post? Or do you feel that economists should not read Marx at all, or should be barred from mentioning his name if they do?

 

[GeezerMan]

Does anyone actually find it surprising that obummer administration members support Marxist beliefs and support class warfare? I don't see why this would be surprising, there's nothing from the past 4 years that suggests anything else. The only surprising thing is that Rick decided to publicly state his support for class warfare. Others support class warfare but are more careful about saying it outright.

yes. Why don't we try capitalism for a change?, rather than class warfare. Crony capitalism under Bush ( shocker!, I don't like Bush either ) and extended under Obama has widened the income gap.


Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

 

[yllus]

In the comments, Rick Bookstaber actually says it best:

I have received a number of comments that are diatribes and I will not be publishing them. Some are offended by this post and view it as being "communist propaganda" because it includes a quote from Marx. It is natural to refer to Marx when speaking of the industrial revolution. Marx was a notable, even preeminent, social philosopher of that time.

yes. Why don't we try capitalism for a change?, rather than class warfare. Crony capitalism under Bush ( shocker!, I don't like Bush either ) and extended under Obama has widened the income gap.


Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

Instead of changing the subject, could you answer whether you actually read and understood Mr. Bookstaber's blog post?

 

[Atreus21]

There should never be a problem in principle with quoting Karl Marx, ever. This should be obvious to everyone. There may be specific ideas of Marx's that people find objectionable, but he was one of the most enormously important political and economic theorists in all of human history. He produced numerous economic and political insights that people of all ideological persuasions readily accept today. (his contributions to the value of labor are hugely influential) Are we supposed to pretend that doesn't exist because he said other things you don't like?

I think he should be judged by the destructive institutions which were the hallmark of his signature work.

 

[fskimospy]

I think he should be judged by the destructive institutions which were the hallmark of his signature work.

You're avoiding the question, please explain why Marx should never be quoted. I'm frankly unable to comprehend why someone would engage in such a stunning rejection of knowledge.

 

[Jhhnn]

In the comments, Rick Bookstaber actually says it best:

Instead of changing the subject, could you answer whether you actually read and understood Mr. Bookstaber's blog post?

They don't read past what they want to see-

Marxist! Marxist! Marxist! Ebil! EEEEeebil!

It's conditioning, created by the absorption of a lifetime of wingnut agitprop. They can't help themselves, any more than Pavlov's dog could.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're avoiding the question, please explain why Marx should never be quoted. I'm frankly unable to comprehend why someone would engage in such a stunning rejection of knowledge.

You silly man- Knowledge is the enemy of Faith, and therefore must be repressed. Burn the blasphemers! Burn them!

 

[GeezerMan]

In the comments, Rick Bookstaber actually says it best:



Instead of changing the subject, could you answer whether you actually read and understood Mr. Bookstaber's blog post?

Dude, I quoted him earlier..it's not changing the subject. class warfare is the subject, and Bookstaber calls it justified. Seems to me the main argument in this thread has boiled down to rather or not class warfare is a good thing.

Bookstaber : "I am not picking sides in this, but I believe such a "war" can be justified, and indeed ultimately is inevitable. "

Instead of supporting a class struggle, as Marx and Engels did to bring about communism, perhaps Bookstaber and the rest of govt should strive to bring back regulated free enterprise and get rid of crony capitalism

 

[sandorski]

Dude, I quoted him earlier..it's not changing the subject. class warfare is the subject, and Bookstaber calls it justified. Seems to me the main argument in this thread has boiled down to rather or not class warfare is a good thing.

Bookstaber : "I am not picking sides in this, but I believe such a "war" can be justified, and indeed ultimately is inevitable. "

Instead of supporting a class struggle, as Marx and Engels did to bring about communism, perhaps Bookstaber and the rest of govt should strive to bring back regulated free enterprise and get rid of crony capitalism

[/i]



How do you remember to breath?

Srs question.

 

[yllus]

Dude, I quoted him earlier..it's not changing the subject. class warfare is the subject, and Bookstaber calls it justified. Seems to me the main argument in this thread has boiled down to rather or not class warfare is a good thing.

Bookstaber : "I am not picking sides in this, but I believe such a "war" can be justified, and indeed ultimately is inevitable. "

Instead of supporting a class struggle, as Marx and Engels did to bring about communism, perhaps Bookstaber and the rest of govt should strive to bring back regulated free enterprise and get rid of crony capitalism

Then you missed the entire point of his blog post: Mr. Bookstaber does not in that piece support class struggle, he simply names it as unavoidable. Because there can be no defined set of economic rights, "class warfare" between employer and employee will occur as each attempt to maximize their share of the returns. Perhaps you should read the entire piece and re-evaluate your opinion?

 

[Atreus21]

You're avoiding the question, please explain why Marx should never be quoted. I'm frankly unable to comprehend why someone would engage in such a stunning rejection of knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with quoting Marx. There is something wrong with quoting Marx with no expectation of a backlash considering what Marx is attributed with.

 

[fskimospy]

There's nothing wrong with quoting Marx. There is something wrong with quoting Marx with no expectation of a backlash considering what Marx is attributed with.

So let me get this straight. You think there is nothing wrong with quoting Marx, but you think that each person who does so should be prepared to be attacked for the simple act of quoting Marx due to people thinking that there is something wrong with quoting Marx.

So are you just saying that there are lots of moronic people out there who don't know any better?

 

[yllus]

There's nothing wrong with quoting Marx. There is something wrong with quoting Marx with no expectation of a backlash considering what Marx is attributed with.

Economists should not be forced to censor themselves for fear that the functionally illiterate might misunderstand them.

What a depressing thread. Is it quite obvious that America has the government that it seeks and deserves.

 

[fskimospy]

Economists should not be forced to censor themselves for fear that the functionally illiterate might misunderstand them.

What a depressing thread. Is it quite obvious that America has the government that it seeks and deserves.

If some of Marx's ideas were bad it means that we have to ignore those of his that were good. Someone who I am ideologically opposed to must be ignored at all costs, and any contributions to the world or our greater understanding discounted.

 

[Matt1970]

You're avoiding the question, please explain why Marx should never be quoted. I'm frankly unable to comprehend why someone would engage in such a stunning rejection of knowledge.

If you are going to quote someone then shouldn't it be someone who's theories hold up and aren't in direct contradiction to what made the USA the great country it is?

"He was wrong about what he said 90% of the time but this is part of the 10%"

Quoting Marx is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[yllus]

If you are going to quote someone then shouldn't it be someone who's theories hold up and aren't in direct contradiction to what made the USA the great country it is?

"He was wrong about what he said 90% of the time but this is part of the 10%"

Quoting Marx is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

How could you possibly discuss class warfare and not mention Marx? Would you discuss the foundation of modern physics and dance around mentioning Einstein?